Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Stamping Plans - A new question -Reply -Reply

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I'm not so sure it is this clear cut - especially with cross-complaints
filed so prevalently.  This case was not so difficult to solve, however, the
first case I mentioned in Los Angeles where the engineer of the structure
was licensed in California but located out of state and refused to take
responsiblity for the foundation. The foundation engineer was local and also
refused to accept responsibility for the whole project. A new engineer was
hired who will design the package from scratch - which negates the savings
expected by the building owner.

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Kim <PKIM(--nospam--at)BAS.CI.LA.CA.US>
To: seaoc(--nospam--at) <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
Date: Monday, December 15, 1997 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: Stamping Plans - A new question -Reply -Reply

> I have had this problem on a job in Santa Ana where I
>designed the structure, another engineer designed the truss repair and
>truss design (through the truss fabricator - heavy bow string trusses).
>My point is that it should be reasonable to have one engineer of record
>as a
>coordinator, but only make him/her responsible for the interaction of the
>structural elements - not the failure of a proprietary part.
>Any thoughts?
>Dennis S. Wish PE
>There are many instances in which an engineer may use proprietary
>parts (e.g., anchors, connectors, etc.)  However, the engineer of
>record is supposed to review the "product," its design allowable, and its
>application on the project at hand.  Then, the engineer of record stamps
>the overall  plans (which includes the proprietary part) taking on the
>responsibility for the entire project.  If anything was to go wrong with
>that "product," that's an issue to be resolved later by the "product"
>supplier (who provided the design values)  and a lawyer.